[INVESTIGATION] tranthidung seems to be doing the same thing Dabs does.

[Timelord2067]

...

Nice deflection.

First message 2022-07-24, 21:17:21 (GMT +10) - Request that I remove my posts from their thread.

Second message 2022-07-25, 23:22:59 (GMT +10) - At this point tranthidung states they have not contacted anyone else.

I stand by what I said in the OP.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

If you see a guy left accurate feedback on others, Include them on your trust list. That's how it should work.

Really?

Is it a mandatory condition that I have to look at their trust feedback on others, before including them into my trust list?

Trust setting has been designed for that actually. Before adding or removing anyone from your trust list you should consider their judgements of how and why they leave feedback to others also their judgments to the different cases they interact in conversations.  

I read the whole case yesterday from my phone, I was not logged in. I believe your intention is not bad. But you were not clear how to use it.

with high power weight

No one is powerful 🤣
Before it was only on Theymos who used to pick the DT1 and rest those were picked by the DT1 were DT2. It was completely a single call from the admin which obvious was not better than the current system we have.

[LoyceV]

Second message 2022-07-25, 23:22:59 (GMT +10) - At this point tranthidung states they have not contacted anyone else.

I stand by what I said in the OP.

Are you trying to win on semantics from a non-native English speaker? I'm with tranthidung on this one:

You

Have you made this request of others?

Me

no request from anyone else.

Timelord2067's (quoted) question isn't clear. If you would have said for instance: "Have you asked others to remove their posts too?", there wouldn't be any confusion.
Tranthidung answered your vague question by stating the request didn't come from someone else. Don't blame non-native English speakers for being confused on vague questions. He didn't say he did not contact anyone else.

[dragonvslinux]

If you see a guy left accurate feedback on others, Include them on your trust list. That's how it should work.

Is it a mandatory condition that I have to look at their trust feedback on others, before including them into my trust list?

Read this again:

It depends: do they have good trust ratings and good trust lists?

Follow the link to read the full description. This forum is all about freedom, but if you follow what it says there, you could call it mandatory. I believe it's necessary for the Trust system to work properly.

I don't think you can call it mandatory. Maybe it should be, but clearly it isn't. Everyone has the freedom to include who they want in their trust list, in the the way they want, for they reasons they want, regardless of suggested guidelines. It simply means that not all DT1 eligible members should be DT1 if they aren't creating their trust lists appropriately and in the way they should be (based on a users judgement).

If there was a confirmation page after trust list edits stating "Are you sure you trust/distrust these users judgement?", then sure we could call it compulsory. But for now that's not how it works. Maybe some users simply want to only see the trust feedback from users they trust, regardless of whether their judgement is correct or not. This is worth taking into consideration I think and possibly why tranthidung had the list they did.

It just means if that's the case then users should either submit to being blacklisted, or otherwise excluded as a DT1 member, as has been the case here. Now tranthidung is able to see trust feedback from users they trust, as they desire, without any further controversy about it. After all there is no direct option from users to be included in DT1 or not, so there is no formal agreement to this as it were.

[AB de Royse777]

Timelord2067's (quoted) question isn't clear. If you would have said for instance: "Have you asked others to remove their posts too?", there wouldn't be any confusion.
Tranthidung answered your vague question by stating the request didn't come from someone else. Don't blame non-native English speakers for being confused on vague questions. He didn't say he did not contacted anyone else.

Timelord2067 has some weird sense of humor. Being suspicious is not bad but it's not good to stick to it when there are some clear explanation. I am with Tranthidung. He may be did not use the system how it should be but he did not do anything wrong to go under the sword too.

[AnotherAlt]

If you see a guy left accurate feedback on others, Include them on your trust list. That's how it should work.

Really?

Is it a mandatory condition that I have to look at their trust feedback on others, before including them into my trust list?

I could be wrong. But that's how it should work. At least that is what I read from LoyceV's thread which you can find in his previous post. He already mentioned the part I was talking about. If I am right (I assume I am after seeing LoyceV's post), I guess you misunderstood or it wasn't intentional. It's not any offense anyway. You have removed almost all of them from your Trust list.

One thing, my guy, Life is not a bed of roses. If you know you are right, Do not get manipulated by haters' allegations. Do not take a decision when you are angry or manipulated by others. Take your time. Observe everything. If you know, You are legit. Strictly with your decision.

[Timelord2067]

Timelord2067's (quoted) question isn't clear. If you would have said for instance: "Have you asked others to remove their posts too?", there wouldn't be any confusion.
Tranthidung answered your vague question by stating the request didn't come from someone else. Don't blame non-native English speakers for being confused on vague questions. He didn't say he did not contact anyone else.

I wrote:

...snip...

Have you made this request of others?

...snip...

(Their request was to remove my posts)

Their reply was:

lol, no request from anyone else. Please don't connect anything to DT role.

...snip...

It's not ambiguous.  They claim they never asked anyone else to remove their posts, hence what Tranthidung is now saying is misleading.

...

By their own admission, as with Dabs, they haven't actually corrected their misuse.  In this instance, they have simply had themselves removed from the DT1 vote.

Like Dabs, tranthidung is ignoring the expectations of their peers.

Please stay on topic.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Is anything wrong when I trust people I worked with and all goes smooth ?

Well, like AnotherAlt said, there is clear a difference between feedback and trust.
There is nothing wrong in trusting people you worked with and all goes well, but on the other hand, I personally don't think it's right trusting every single person youve had a successful deal with, or even promoting them to a higher DT level because they gave you a g'trust (clearly, I am not a DT member so I might not fully understand how the DT system works).
I think we all should refrain from trusting a user on our very first successful deal with the user, there are some users who do deals solely for the purpose of gaining a g'trust most especially from DT members.

[AB de Royse777]

By their own admission, as with Dabs, they haven't actually corrected their misuse.  In this instance, they have simply had themselves removed from the DT1 vote.

Like Dabs, tranthidung is ignoring the expectations of their peers.

Please stay on topic.

I am on topic. I would love to see Tranthidung understand the idea of using feedback and trust setting. Give him time to understand instead of poking him. It's not a place we blame each others.

The Dabs case was not clear to me as I did not have time and mind to involve in other things because of the situations I was in for the last few months.

[Timelord2067]

I'm pretty sure Tranthidung knew what they were doing given they now DT distrust me together with the issues I raised in the OP I consider their action to be retaliatory towards me.

[notocactus]

I'm pretty sure Tranthidung knew what they were doing given they now DT distrust me together with the issues I raised in the OP I consider their action to be retaliatory towards me.

I did not distrust you because of this topic, but it is because you played with words, and distorted my DM meaning to you. Please ask anyone who can understand my reply to you in the way you described in your posts.

• Prepositions 'from' and 'to' have different meanings and you tried to change the meaning. If you can point out any dictionary supports your opinion, please share, I am ready to learn it.
• So far, I did not understand the preposition 'of' has the meaning you implied. Maybe I could be wrong here because I am non-native English speaker
• Weird

This style is reflected on many feedbacks given to your account by other members too.

[Timelord2067]

Maybe I could be wrong here because I am non-native English speaker

You're still playing the "translation" card?

Code:

~tranthidung
~dzungmobile

[notocactus]

Maybe I could be wrong here because I am non-native English speaker

You're still playing the "translation" card?

Code:

~tranthidung
~dzungmobile

Go ahead. Nothing to be serious when you distrust me.  

As I said, if you can not share where the 'of' preposition has the meaning you implied here, you are wrong. The way you understand my answer with 'from' is wrong too. So your distrust makes no sense with me.

[Timelord2067]

Nice deflection there.

I've found that you were gaming the trust feedback and default trust system, so you in turn sequel and fill the thread with FUD.

*CASE CLOSED*